Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System
| dc.contributor.author | Kaplan, Aliza B. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Saack, Amy | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-03-30T21:02:36Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-03-30T21:02:36Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-03-30 | |
| dc.description | 52 pages. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | In 1934, Oregon amended its Constitution to allow, “that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty for first degree murder, which shall be found only by unanimous verdict.” Oregon became the second state, after Louisiana, to allow nonunanimous juries in criminal cases. Louisiana’s “Majority Rule,” passed in 1880, three years after Reconstruction when white landowners sought to replace black slave labor. The new law allowed juries to convict defendants without a unanimous vote and was deliberately designed to create more convicts to increase the labor force. Making convictions easier meant more prisoners, especially freed blacks, and more prisoners meant more labor to lease for profit. Passed some fifty-four years later and under different circumstances, Oregon’s history is also shameful. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 95 OR. L. REV. 1 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/22247 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon School of Law | en_US |
| dc.rights | All Rights Reserved. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Supreme Court of Oregon | en_US |
| dc.subject | Jurisprudence | en_US |
| dc.subject | Juries | en_US |
| dc.title | Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |